How Motorcycles Could Eradicate Traffic

[SuperHans]

http://editorial.autos.msn.com/blogs/autosblogpost.aspx?post=3ee3b791-cde5-44c4-a95f-7081c47f8059

Swapping cars for bikes drastically reduces traffic and emissions, according to a new study.
By Claire_Martin Feb 16, 2012 12:43PM


We know that motorcycles get far better gas mileage than passenger cars and trucks, so it follows that if motorcycles replaced cars on the roads, gas consumption would decrease. But traffic would also drop significantly -- a revelation that comes courtesy of a new study by a Belgian transportation-research firm.

Researchers used computer-modeling software to analyze a stretch of highway between the Belgian cities of Leuven and Brussels, pulling from rush-hour traffic statistics during a typical workday last May. They found that if 10 percent of cars were replaced by motorcycles, drivers' commuting times would decrease by 40 percent and emissions would drop by 6 percent. (The latter is a combination of the fact that motorcycles inherently have lower emissions and that emission rates drop as a vehicle's speed increases -- which it is wont to do when traffic lightens or dissipates.)

Moreover, when the results were extrapolated to Belgium's other highways, the time savings for all vehicles was 15,000 hours per day. And when 25 percent of cars were swapped out for motorcycles, traffic was eliminated entirely.

The explanation for the traffic cure is simple enough. "When there is little traffic on the road, it can be expected that motorcycles will take up as much space on the road as cars," researchers wrote. "However, when the road becomes busier, and the speed of the traffic flow falls, motorcycles take up less space. Some motorcycles keep less distance from the vehicle in front or ride between two lanes." And when car traffic stops altogether, motorcycles keep moving thanks to lane splitting -- the practice of steering between rows of cars lined up in traffic lanes, which is legal in many parts of the world.

Since the study incorporated only statistics on Belgium's primary roads, its main commuter thoroughfares, there are limits to what researchers can do to predict further-reaching traffic reductions. But they speculate that secondary roads would experience a similar traffic boon: "Based on a number of partial reflections, it can be expected that the time benefit is of the same order of magnitude as that of the primary road network," they wrote, though they added that "additional research is needed to substantiate this statement."

[squeezer]

Makes sense to me.


Or maybe not:

[greidel]

Or maybe not:

I know you're kidding... but seriously: Count the heads in that picture, then figure about 25' or more for every 1.5 people you see. How long of a line of traffic would that be?

Most cars you see on the road in America during rush hour are carrying 1 person. Seriously, Hummers carrying 1 person? We could build less roads and save farmland if people didn't insist on driving such large vehicles.

[Mrs. DantesDame]

And when car traffic stops altogether, motorcycles keep moving thanks to lane splitting -- the practice of steering between rows of cars lined up in traffic lanes, which is legal in many parts of the world.

Sigh  

[SuperHans]

I know you're kidding... but seriously: Count the heads in that picture, then figure about 25' or more for every 1.5 people you see. How long of a line of traffic would that be?

Most cars you see on the road in America during rush hour are carrying 1 person. Seriously, Hummers carrying 1 person? We could build less roads and save farmland if people didn't insist on driving such large vehicles.

Hell, I could probably count on one hand the amount of vehicles I see during my morning commute with more than one person in them. I'm just as guilty.

[black hills]

I know you're kidding... but seriously: Count the heads in that picture, then figure about 25' or more for every 1.5 people you see. How long of a line of traffic would that be?

Most cars you see on the road in America during rush hour are carrying 1 person. Seriously, Hummers carrying 1 person? We could build less roads and save farmland if people didn't insist on driving such large vehicles.

think of the fule savings if we could get people to car pool. 4 or 5 in a 20 mpg vehicle is far more efficient than the same 4 or 5 riding motorcycles

[squeezer]

I know you're kidding... but seriously: Count the heads in that picture, then figure about 25' or more for every 1.5 people you see. How long of a line of traffic would that be?

Most cars you see on the road in America during rush hour are carrying 1 person. Seriously, Hummers carrying 1 person? We could build less roads and save farmland if people didn't insist on driving such large vehicles.

Very true.

[Rogue]

All I can say is, be careful what you wish for.

My vote is to keep most drivers in their cars.  The last thing I want are masses of people in motorcycles and scooters!  My goodness, the mayhem that will cause!

[atadaskew]

Apparently Guzzi is strenously lobbying against this idea (they are trying to send a telegraph to Brussels but do not understand why that does not seem to work anymore).
Reckless ideas like this would see an increase in the demand for their bikes, which would cut into their 20 hour workweek.  Not including lunch.

[SuperHans]

Here in the United States increased use of mass transit would solve a lot of issues. ALthough the issues with mass transit are a whole nother can of worms.

[Croak]

[bubba zanetti]

Woah ...

[black hills]

they appear to have the same aerodynamic qualities as my adventure? now all I need is some guns....

[Rogue]

Mass transit may work up to a point.  Just look at the NY or Tokyo subway!  Holy Crap!  What a cluster fook of epic proportions!  It's like a sardin can in there during rush hour.  The Frenchman is right, it doesn't matter what they're in.

What we need to do is to accept a fundamental change in the way we put our people to work.

For example, most of my office co-workers can work from home.  Some people do via their laptops.  I can run reports, send emails, make calls, work on shared files, save files from a common server, print, etc., all from my own home.  Yet, they make us drive to work.  They are willing to pay the lease expenses, the utilities bill, etc., to house so many employees in our corporate offices yet they have the capability to drop that huge overhead by allowing us to work from home!  This is the same problem with people who insist on getting paper copies of documents when they can easily use a PDF file with read/write capability much more efficiently!

It's amazing really!  The first company that is able to execute this work-from-home successfully will save so much in costs, they will have a competitive advantage.  

[atadaskew]

Mass transit may work up to a point.  Just look at the NY or Tokyo subway!  Holy Crap!  What a cluster fook of epic proportions!  It's like a sardin can in there during rush hour.  The Frenchman is right, it doesn't matter what they're in.

What we need to do is to accept a fundamental change in the way we put our people to work.

For example, most of my office co-workers can work from home.  Some people do via their laptops.  I can run reports, send emails, make calls, work on shared files, save files from a common server, print, etc., all from my own home.  Yet, they make us drive to work.  They are willing to pay the lease expenses, the utilities bill, etc., to house so many employees in our corporate offices yet they have the capability to drop that huge overhead by allowing us to work from home!  This is the same problem with people who insist on getting paper copies of documents when they can easily use a PDF file with read/write capability much more efficiently!

It's amazing really!  The first company that is able to execute this work-from-home successfully will save so much in costs, they will have a competitive advantage.  

The problem with that is you could work at multiple places at the same time.  Companies don't dig that idea.

[Rogue]

Well that's possible but not a hurdle.

If you had time to work at two companies then you have too much time in your hands.  But I see your point.  Many Sales people already telecommute.

However, it's the next big step in finding efficiencies within an increasingly high cost of employing people.  The technology exists and is proven but everybody is reluctant to use it to its full potential.

[expatbrit]

What we need to do is to accept a fundamental change in the way we put our people to work.

For example, most of my office co-workers can work from home.  Some people do via their laptops.  I can run reports, send emails, make calls, work on shared files, save files from a common server, print, etc., all from my own home.  Yet, they make us drive to work.  They are willing to pay the lease expenses, the utilities bill, etc., to house so many employees in our corporate offices yet they have the capability to drop that huge overhead by allowing us to work from home!  This is the same problem with people who insist on getting paper copies of documents when they can easily use a PDF file with read/write capability much more efficiently!

It's amazing really!  The first company that is able to execute this work-from-home successfully will save so much in costs, they will have a competitive advantage.  

I've been pretty much a full time telecommuter for 3 or 4 years now. We maintain an office here in town, but most of the projects I work on are elsewhere, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to go in there. I've a sufficiently fast connection and have an IP phone that rings my office number, video capabilities via a laptop videoconferencing connection, and, as you said, file access to common systems that also aren't located in my local office.

When I need to meet someone, I can go to an office -- here, or wherever. The rest of the time I don't have to.

It does have it's minuses, for sure (especially if you're social) but I'll take it over dealing with being in a cube farm and trying to work to the background noise, any day.

[sammyseaman]

You had me at eradicate  

[Snowbird]

I know you're kidding... but seriously: Count the heads in that picture, then figure about 25' or more for every 1.5 people you see. How long of a line of traffic would that be?

Most cars you see on the road in America during rush hour are carrying 1 person. Seriously, Hummers carrying 1 person? We could build less roads and save farmland if people didn't insist on driving such large vehicles.

I'm in full agreement with you and I've often said that the problem with cars is that manufacturers load them with too much STUFF... including government mandated safety equipment. The result is additional bloat that results in ever-increasing technological efforts to get better fuel mileage, or in the case of this thread, results in highway crowding.

I have no problem with large and heavy vehicles per se, just when they are used when a smaller, lighter vehicle would fill the role as well and benefit everyone.

[Snowbird]

Well that's possible but not a hurdle.

If you had time to work at two companies then you have too much time in your hands.  But I see your point.  Many Sales people already telecommute.

However, it's the next big step in finding efficiencies within an increasingly high cost of employing people.  The technology exists and is proven but everybody is reluctant to use it to its full potential.

The reason telecommuting is not more widely used is that people actually enjoy getting together in groups. You know, actual social interaction....